10 Questions for KJV-only Supporters


Since I've become interested in the KJV-only debate, I have been involved in many discussions with those supporting the KJV-only position. I have often asked questions that rarely or never even get a response, or when they do, the answers don't make sense in light of KJV-onlyism.

These are simple questions. An essay does not need to be written in response for any of them.

If you are KJV-only try your hand at answering the following questions, and send your answers to the discussion board (please read the rules). If you answer the following questions convincingly (so that they are both true and do not contradict KJV-onlyism), you win a prize. ;-)

If you are not KJV-only, try asking some of these questions to KJV-only supporters that you run into. And don't let them change the subject. ;-)

  1. Is/was the Latin Vulgate the "word of God"? Why or why not? (Note: the Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible, by which all else was compared, more universally and for a longer period of time than the KJV has been)

  2. Is/was the Septuagint (LXX) the "word of God"? Why or why not? (Note: despite its obvious imperfections and inclusion of apocryphal books, the KJV translators still called it "the word of God")

  3. Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the "word of God"? Why or why not?

  4. Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted? Why do they differ, even occasionally in words? (And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers? The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God. And how can we know the printing errors were all found, and all properly fixed?)

  5. Who publishes the uncorrupted KJV? Cambride, Oxford, Kirkbride, Scofield, AMG, Zondervan, one of the Bible Societies, or one of the many other publishers? Why do they differ slightly, even occasionally in words?

  6. If passages like Psalm 12:6-7 and Matt 5:18 are about the KJV, what did these passages mean in 1610? In 1500? In 500 AD? Do these things, in the original context, have anything to do with a 17th century English translation of scripture?

  7. When you encounter an archaic term or phrase in the KJV, or come across a "contradiction", why do you rely on fallible tools (dictionaries, etc) to interpret the infallible?

  8. Suppose you lived in the 10th or 15th century. How would you define "preservation" as it related to God's word, so as to not contradict the KJV-only position?

  9. The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority", the "preserved word of God" in 1610 and prior? Why does the KJV differ from it, and how was it "final" if the KJV replaced it? Explain.

  10. If scripture is the sole authority for matters of faith and doctrine, then by what authority should anyone accept the doctrine of KJV-onlyism? Since scripture does not teach the doctrine of KJV-onlyism, is it not then an extra-Biblical doctrine? Why should we accept a doctrine needing a second authority, proclaimed by those who argue that there is only one authority for matters of doctrine in the first place?